Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

Post by Tomte » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:28 PM UTC

sinesha wrote: post #93

verytrivial wrote: post #17

These doors very effectively mean that control of the plane would be put into the hands of the cabin crew, but magnifies the cost of a rogue operator -- I am certain the risks were evaluated and the challenge of a determined suicidal pilot was ruled outside scope. And yes, there are emergency override codes, but there are also time override-overrides from within the cabin. Even if the protocol where two members of st…

Do you know the rational behind having override-overrides from the cockpit? For me, this only makes sense under the assumption that Prob(malicious agent who knows emergency codes in cockpit and good agents knowing codes outside ) is much smaller Prob(good agent knowing codes in cockpit and malicious agents knowing codes outside). How is this assumption justified? Under current regulations, the latter is becoming more…

Post by frevd » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:29 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #36

herge wrote: post #8

First, remember the Breaking News Consumer's Handbook: Airline Edition ( https://media2.wnyc.org/i/620/620/l/80/1/BNCHAE.jpg ). Second, I'm sure that Mr. Robin is a nice guy, but there's no need to publish his stray speculations just two days after the crash.

The co-pilot was breathing normally for ten minutes while the door was being hammered repeatedly. Interpreting this as 'deliberate' inaction is hardly 'stray speculation'.

Post by ptaipale » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:29 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #91

mrec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, reinforced cockpit doors is pretty much the one measure that's NOT dismissed as security theatre.

I can't imagine a more false statement, as the business model before 9/11 was do nothing and cooperate and everyone will be safe, and the business model after 9/11 is every person on the plane must rush the hijackers or thousands will be killed. So the reinforced door is a response to a problem that no longer exists. Ideally you'd have a door that is strong enough to be "people proof" for long enough for the entire p…

Post by ckozlowski » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:29 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #91

mrec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, reinforced cockpit doors is pretty much the one measure that's NOT dismissed as security theatre.

I can't imagine a more false statement, as the business model before 9/11 was do nothing and cooperate and everyone will be safe, and the business model after 9/11 is every person on the plane must rush the hijackers or thousands will be killed. So the reinforced door is a response to a problem that no longer exists. Ideally you'd have a door that is strong enough to be "people proof" for long enough for the entire p…

Post by post_break » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

frevd wrote: post #116

verytrivial wrote: post #17

These doors very effectively mean that control of the plane would be put into the hands of the cabin crew, but magnifies the cost of a rogue operator -- I am certain the risks were evaluated and the challenge of a determined suicidal pilot was ruled outside scope. And yes, there are emergency override codes, but there are also time override-overrides from within the cabin. Even if the protocol where two members of st…

What about the much less hypothetical case that one of the pilots becomes unconscious while the other is out of the cabin. How is he supposed to get back in, ever?